Your Colors Suck (it's not your fault) 

I love how this video shows you how to Deep-Fry your Memes.

❤❤q❤

Honestly, if anything, Incogni is *more* insidious than the data brokers that it supposedly protects you from. Data brokers might profit off your personal information, but Incogni profits off your perceived anxieties over people profiting off your personal information. It's fearmongering as a business, just like VPNs. The reality is that you are not that important and that there is nobody specifically looking up your personal information to do bad things with it. Literally nobody. Stop freaking out about things that happen only in your imagination.

begging like a dog. but that "money" can't buy you a little girl bride. Which is what money was invented for in sumer. Id10r

with this pace you might want to do 100k and 200k special in November :-D congrats 🎉

Fr

Exactly, like me who started decades ago and still try to make sure im understanding the concepts of this sh*t to this day and forced me to study pholosophy cause all i wanted was to actually understand it. it just drove me insane.

mogswamp my beloved

a mc youtuber here lol

I cry, pantone laughs

One of the best parts of acerola's videos to me is that they usually progress the same way my brain works. Start talking about how to create pleasing color palates at random and after a while is discussing why posters design aren't as creative and informative as they used to be, just to stop and think "way why did i get here in the first place?! Oh yeah random colors!"

Not what ADHD is

Honestly I still prefer the topics being introduced in classes the same way. I think the graphic examples and uses are more helpful after to help solidify the concepts. The problem with that is educators have basically no time to do both, leading to an unsatisfactory experience regardless.

If only more math teachers spent hundreds of hours preparing every lesson… making videos like this is hard, long, tedious work.

Honestly, having each class of students being taught by individual teachers is inefficient. The main source of knowledge should be the best of prerecorded lessons and an on-site teacher is just there to help with questions that can't be googled quickly and to keep distractions down.

that'd make sense! the 16 dimensional space sounds cooler though so i will simply pretend that is the case

I absolutely love when evolution does stupid shit like this. I mean, it's pointless; why not just have a bit of colour blending and get sooo much more visual acuity. but does it work, even if only just _well enough,_ at least? yes, apparently. and so it do be like that. (for those interested in other wonderful evolutional fuckery, go look up how giraffes have a nerve that goes from the brain, down to loop behind a big artery near the heart, and _up to the mouth again_ - this is the case for all mammals, but with giraffes it's particularly egregious. they have actual mouth-movement lag)

​@@mnxs I guess they might not have big enough brains for combining colour, so they got better eyes instead

God did a bit of trolling when designing these weird eyed freaks/beauties

@@mnxs yup, the biggest problem this does for giraffes is that they simply can't make noises properly. their vocal cords can never operate in sync when half of it is suffering permanent ping issues.

I was supposed to be doing hw rn so real

Fr

Exactly, how does this man not have 500k 😭

Same

Well maybe sebastian lague too

I agree! as a color science hobbyist this video covers a lot of information quite accurately. The only major mistakes that I noticed were the intuition for what X, Y, and Z change about a color and the definition of chromaticity. TLDR: XYZ is very similar to the RGB color model in that it is additive with the X 'primary' being reddish, the Y greenish, and the Z bluish. Chromaticity means a specific point on the chromaticity diagram i.e. color without regard to luminance. and here's the long version: XYZ is very similar to an RGB color model in that it is additive with the X 'primary' being reddish, the Y greenish, and the Z bluish. The catch is that the X and Z axes are perpendicular to the luminance axis which means that they would theoretically (being impossible colors) appear black on their own. Only by adding a little bit of luminance (Y) would you be able to get an idea of what they look like. You can also think of X as leading to the right in the chromaticity diagram, Y leading up, and Z leading to the lower left corner. Chromaticity means a specific point on the chromaticity diagram i.e. color without regard to luminance. Another way of thinking of chromaticity is to remember that the chromaticity diagram is a projection of a slice of the XYZ space. Imagine a ray through the origin of the XYZ or RGB color spaces. Technically the origin is black and is equivalent to any chromaticity at 0 luminance, but any other points on a ray will have the same chromaticity while differing only in luminance.

Also went down this rabbit hole a few years ago. I ended up on CIECAM02 which since OKLAB wasn’t really that popular back then. I wish this video existed back then because it would’ve saved me weeks of research.

In terms of doing math with colors (such as photoshop layers blending modes), do you believe it is better to work with a perceptual models such as Oklab or instead work with ACEScg or other industry-standard linear RGB spaces? I'm new to all this theory and I am interested in any insight about the differences between these

I can only agree with Hank. I still have to find a good tristimulus dataset to convert any pure wavelength to a perceptual color, in a way that when you draw a spectrum, it's not plagues with visible bands. Meanwhile I devised my own color model, HCI (Hue Chroma Intensity) that arguably works better than *Lab color models, but is computationally very expensive to invert (requires binary search).

@@Uncl3M3at Both have their value. It's about using the right tool for the job. At the end of the day, your output will be a formed RGB image, the steps to get there are of course entirely dependant on your specific situation. It's preferential to use OKLab to calculate gradients for the reasons explained in the video, but you're going to have to convert those generated values to RGB values so you can actually use them in a bitmap image or display them on a screen. As for the blend modes, those also have value as they are used for artistic effect and produce a (presumably) desired response. They're equally valid.

Interesting! I would imagine that using a perceptual color space to calculate the adjustment layers would really make a difference there. Changing the hue and saturation while keeping the HSL/HSV "luminance" or "value" number the same is going to change the perceived value, in some cases quite a bit.

@@BrooksMoses I was thinking the same thing! Definitely going to experiment with that colour space since I use Krita.

When Acerola starts talkin cell biology: Neuron activation

so I'm also a bio student, and I seek info. The RGB color model means that the screens don't show all colors we can see, or are those colors outside it the so called imaginary colors

@@HoneyDoll894 Both, if you're talking about the sRGB triangle. There are colors outside of sRGB that we see normally and sRGB can't replicate them due to the LCD screen limitations. You could still use those colors if you were to paint them in real life. There are also imaginary colors that only our eyes can see and we couldn't ever replicate a paint for those colors because those imaginary colors only exist in our minds under certain contexts like cone fatiguing.

@@HoneyDoll894 is that a Phosphophyllite profile picture? that's awesome

@@HoneyDoll894 It really doesn't matter much what the visible spectrum for us humans is. The physical ability of LEDs or CRTs has its own intensity graph, all of them nonlinear. This is adjusted by filters on the electronics level to map that to a more usable spectrum. More translation is applied (try to switch the profiles of your monitor). Then we have screen-space colors and all the color models you mentioned. Another level of filters, in your drawing/video program will help you to produce/adjust content for print media, for web or other forms of distribution, like movie theaters ... you get what I mean, its simply overwhelming:) Direct RGB to, lets call it, human eye-receptor-mapping would be non-linear, because of our evolutionary higher sensitivity shaped by evolution, e.g. the greatest light sensitivity for spectral colors in the yellow-green range (hey? when did you eat a nice meal of grass, the last times? hehehe). The same applies to an arbitrary, for example 0-255, 32bit integer value encoding colors and applying them as a voltage/phase-angle-modulation/etc to light emitting technology. Those aren't linear either. Any of those filters in this possible long and complicated chain (from your Image data through the monitor into your eyes) help to make the experience more natural and also standardized. Well, as I said, there are several techniques for different applications. Viewing is a whole different approach than printing media. Btw that all of that does make really sense, one has to CALIBRATE his monitor. Mostly no one (artists and professionals of course excluded here), no normal computer user has such a device or cares about that. Color receptance is highly individual and can even change with your personal mood or, your hormones or the time of the day (most people don't have a standardized studio light background either ... but our lovely sun:) ). So this can be a topic of fights to the blood (of some nerds?) and also the most inconsistent science of all (depends of course if you "eliminate" those pesky humans out of the equation, hehehe). I wish you both a wonderful time and big discoveries and exciting insights during your studies!:) (This text was written in a dark grey color. Hmm, I should clean my monitor ...)

now you can see more colors right

Same, I didn't know how bad until I had a class where we were supposed to create different color relationships with color swatches and I had such a hard time with it.

i don't want to whine too much about one of the admittedly less debilitating disabilities one can have but i really do think people underestimate just how much colorblindness impacts the way you process, and in turn depict, the world. like holy shit guys did you know that Light? i sure fucking didn't.

​@@northropi2027 No see, as an artist who can see in all color, I swear to God I had a dream once where I went colorblind and was absolutely devastated. Here's an abridged version (it's really long I'm sorry ;-;) : 9/17/23 Sun. This was mostly in the first person. I woke up from a coma to my mom feeding me cornmeal mush or something. Everything was a warmish blue, and was dark. Looking in the bathroom mirror, I saw that my left eye was missing. Everything remained blue as I went to ask mom what happened, and she reluctantly told me that I'd somehow cut it off before passing out and falling into the coma; the surgeons couldn't help much. With only one eye, I lost my depth perception, which was to be expected, though it was still upsetting. Everything then turned black and white and I thought (for some reason) that I needed both eyes to percieve color; this only further devastated me. I had an ipad or tablet on hand, and opened up to a color wheel. I tried imagining the colors overlaid on top of it, but it felt horrible. I searched up art tutorials which didn't require color as much (charcoal, graphite, micron pen, anatomy, shape, texture, etc), "but with the media so rich in color, every other tutorial regarding gorgeous sunsets, vibrant floral tones, and other color palettes were hard to sit through, and I skipped through all of them." The rest of the dream was kind of weird because one of my legs was replaced with a lion leg and there were some interesting shenanigans, a water park, and two siblings having a rap battle...? Then there was one section that went, "The walking was inconvenient for sure, *but not so bad as the vision loss.* I would see flashes of color, though now I'm not sure if I was just imagining it. When I would think of things, I'd think of them in color, but I was already starting to forget exactly what they looked like--which particular hue it was, how warm my mom's face was, which gradient went over the shadows," this was followed by a look in the mirror again revealing that a wrinkly little eye was growing back somehow. Inaccurate as the actual aspects of colorblindness were, I think it's safe to say that this dream was within the top 5 tiers of my list of nightmares. It was awful.

I second this.

as another digital artist, this is an amazing insight! i was a little thrown off by how much i liked some of the hsl palettes, but this explains it as well as how much more consistent oklab was in comparison!

Yes I also see magenta. And it makes sense as it's the opposite of green on the colowheel.

16:40 Same here, but I'd say even lighter, like #ffd0f1

Mine was closer to ffc2fb, but it's so hard to try and find a matching 'real' color...

i definitely saw a bright saturated magenta too, but i really enjoyed the massive nothing square in the middle of my vision from the white square around the circle. the square persisted for much longer

Was hoping to find some discussion on the cone fatigue test. Think I saw a fairly saturated magenta but seemed light due to the white background.

Definitely a colourblindness thing, I saw light blue/cyan too and have a mild red/green colourblindness.

Combining pigments is not the same kind of colour theory you have to consider what is taking place there is chemistry, it depends entirely on how those things react as to what the result will be not simply what their apparent colour is.

well these were both super interesting comments 😱

​@@iisthphirchemistry? no. you're implying that there is a chemical reaction happening between the components of the paints. that is not the case. it's just pigments getting _mixed,_ that's all.

It depends on how the pigments react, that would be a chemical reaction. It could be extreme or basically nothing it just depends on what is in them. These days I think most types of paints are made such that they react very little one of the reasons being so you can mix them with predictable results. There are others that are made to react with the surface they are painted on for instance. Historically though pigments were made from all sorts of strange things many of which were not as stable and so did react to some degree, with each other or simply by changing over time from oxidation. Sometimes it may be necessary to paint in one colour to have it end up being a different one. As, I understand, was the case with some of those used by the Italian's during the renaissance.

@@iisthphir it seems unwise to make a historical parallel to modern paints; the latter are often polymer-based or otherwise examples of modern chemical technique and considerations. if two paints are mixed, they are usually from the same manufacturer and of the same type, and thus have the same base chemical composition, _except_ the pigments - thus compatible. but sure, if you mixed a two paints of radically different compositions, weird stuff might happen. I still doubt it would attack the pigments themselves much, though. given modern environmental, toxicological and general safety requirements, I believe pigments wouldn't be particularly reactive anyway - not to mention that it's just not a very desirable trait for a supposedly stable pigment to have. also, the chemical reactions that might happen with the painted surface are one thing, and shouldn't affect the pigments by design. if the paints share a common base composition, and that base won't attack one pigment when it's by itself, why would it attack when it's mixed with something with a different pigment? besides, any non-trivial colour paint would most likely be a mix of any number of pigments anyway.

yeah i forgot krita exists, aseprite also has options for lab i think

Aseprite gang

oh crap that's what I use! So you're saying I can select ...Lab? as the colorspace in Krita?

@@CrescentUmbreon yes L*a*b* is available at least since 4.0 so it's been a while. Coupled with the ability to display different views (like grayscale or mirrored) this is really easy to directly paint without a complex preliminary sketch. Though I don't know if there is some view to get the overall median color/luminance of an image, to check its balance.

@@PainterVierax Thank you, I'll have to research it!

I thought it was going to be about color theory

@@sunshines4898 No way, me too lol

I think the middle one looked kinda nice, but I also think if you made a palette in the third space with the same starting color, that would be nicer still.

so I made the image based on the second palette. I totally agree that 2 lacks contrast, and my usual workflow would include altering the contrast after the fact in ps, however sticking to the generated pallete was kinda the point of the challenge 3 looks great overall, but the train, which is essentially the main subject of the image, really doesn't contrast well against the background - if I'd used 3 initially, I would have definitevely picked a different color for that

third one is way too dark in HDR, can barely distinguish the dark colors

1 is the best looking by far, since it has more pleasing and intense hue shifts whereas the latter two look almost sepia toned. I don't think that speaks to the merits of the respective color spaces though since the palettes were generated with the same parameters. Some amount of matching would need to be done for a proper comparison.

I think the third one is more smooth and balanced but I prefer the first two as they are much more visually interesting and have more vibrancy/hue and contrast which actually serves to benefit it in my completely objective and unbiased opinion (i do not use eyes i am an objective omniscient being)

yeah this is why rgb ray tracing is so wildly diff (and wrong) from spectral ray tracing in some specific contexts

Can you give an example? Is there a common material that's wildly off?

@@exmello yeah, any iridescent object will throw off the whole model... Anything that refracts and bounces light will affect the raytraced path and give a different value for the perception model, some cases are manageable, others are not... I suggest trying to raytrace a gemstone called labradorite in different lightings and positions...

Note that with modern white LED lights, there's a specification called Color Rendering Index (CRI) that gives an approximate value for "similarity to natural light" and most LED lightbulbs have 90+ CRI these days.

@@nikolaihedler8883 CRI gets muddy as well, since it is an average of a bunch of different color indices combined (described as R values 1 through 15). If you look up the CRI data sheets of most LED lights, there are a few R values that are usually severely lacking - notably R9, which is the rendering index for red (red diodes are historically much weaker than other colors).

How exactly is the RGB model ugly? You mean naively generated palettes in the sRGB space as discussed in this video tend to be ugly?

i'm a big fan of HCL since it tracks pretty well with intuitive human perceptions of color

@@unslept_em OKLAB color space can be expressed in LCh numbers as well, it was even added to CSS along with OKLAB as OKLCH.

yea in addition to OKLCH, there’s also OKHSV and OKHSL, which somewhat compromise the accuracy for better use in color pickers, like having saturation (ratio of chroma to max chroma) rather than chroma. imo it’s the best color space family in terms of like pareto optimality

i'm playing from behind in the search engine optimization game

Do share whether you explore this at some point - I've done research in ML before and am fascinated by how massive a difference just getting our units right can make.